9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [ Tribunal for short] dated 29th June 2012. Following questions have been presented for our consideration : (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,46,66,667/= made on account of sale of Ampad Land ? (B) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in as much as it failed to take cognizance of dates of cash receipts mentioned in seized documents ? 2.2 Respondent assessee along with other family members owned a land at Ampad. The assessee was subjected to search proceedings. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain documents were seized with respect to such l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument also containing typed entries was seized. It also pertains to Ampad land. The document made reference to Kanubhai Patel. The document in addition to recording total receipt of ₹ 5.24 Crores also had an entry dated 6th January 2009 showing a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs paid back to Shri Kanubhai Patel. This document had also handwritten entries of similar nature as that of the previous document. It contained the following details: {Paid at Surat A bad April/May 08 524.00 504.00 20.00 to be paid 18.0 Interest lumpsum also paid alongwith 504.0 } Handwritten AMPAD KANUBHAI PATEL RECEIVED PAID ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old to another purchaser for a total consideration of ₹ 5.24 Crores, out of which a sum of ₹ 3.50 Crores was received as on-money. He accordingly disclosed cash amount of ₹ 3.50 Crores. 3. Assessing Officer, however, instead of stopping short of taxing such cash receipt of ₹ 3.5 Crores, further formed an opinion that the entire receipt of ₹ 5.24 Crores allegedly received from Kanubhai Patel was unaccounted. He did not accept the assessee's version that the said amount was received from Kanubhai Patel for purchase of Ampad land which did not eventually materialized, and therefore, the amount was returned. He thus added the said amount as unaccounted cash credit of the assessee. 4. Assessee carried th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , clarified the position of capital gain which was disclosed in A.Y 2009-10. As far as the quantum of the amount is concerned, there was not dispute. The only dispute is thus about the year of taxability. The admitted factual position is that the entire amount of ₹ 524.17 lacs was shown as undisclosed income in A.Y 2009-10. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and taxed the same in two assessment years proportionately i.e., A.Y 2007- 08 and 2008-09. The salient features favouring assessee, submitted before us, are as under :- a. The land under consideration belonged to Shri Krupeshbhai N. Patel, Shri Navinbhai N. Patel and Smt. Varshaben S. Patel. b. The land was purchased in A.Y 2007-08 and was sold in A.Y. 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly paid back. i. As per law since the transaction did not materialized the same cannot be treated as income of the appellant. However, to cover up the discrepancy the appellant had declared the said sum as income. j. The advance from Kanubhai Patel were received in A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y 2008-09 whereas the money was refunded to him in the subsequent year. 17.1 In the light of the above discussed factual matrix, we find no reason to reverse the findings of learned CIT [A] because in a worst situation if we affirm the action of the A.G, then the natural consequences should be to adjust the income which has already been taxed against the addition made for the year under consideration. Since double taxation is not permitted and the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
